LONDON — When it comes to security, both Brussels and London would love to remain best friends after Brexit — but breakups rarely work that way.

International events since the U.K.’s June 2016 referendum have only served to highlight that on foreign policy, defense and internal security, the U.K. and the EU are on the same page and intend to remain there. Amid fears of increasing terrorist threats and with transatlantic relations strained by a less predictable American president, the interests of those on both sides of the Channel appear increasingly closely aligned.

“Our world is in a state of chaos and in the midst of such confusion the EU and the U.K. need one another,” EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Monday. As if to underline the point, she spoke alongside Michel Barnier, the EU27’s chief Brexit negotiator, at the EU Institute for Security Studies.

A few hours earlier, in Berlin, the U.K. delivered exactly the same message, via Andrew Parker, director general of MI5, the U.K. security service. Hailing the collaboration between British and European security agencies — joint working which he said he could “confidently” assert had saved European lives — Parker added: “In today’s uncertain world we all need that shared strength more than ever.”

But despite the warm rhetoric, talks over a future security partnership have already become difficult, notably over the depth of U.K. access to and involvement with the EU’s satellite navigation system Galileo, which has quickly become a litmus test for how deep a security partnership can really be.

“Solidarity is not to be negotiated” — Michel Barnier

Even as both sides publicly stressed their shared interests, the UK Space Agency wrote to British companies working on the Galileo system to remind them they needed U.K. government security clearance for any future work, the department of business said Monday.

Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, both Barnier and Mogherini said Monday, must have “consequences,” and while discussions about security are currently only at an “exploratory” phase, Barnier said, the extent to which those consequences will impact security cooperation will become more apparent in less than a year’s time once the U.K. can negotiate its future relationship with the bloc as a third country.

A common enemy

Despite the awkward political context, the two sides’ common interests are abundantly clear.

As the heightened terror threat across Europe — Parker pointed to 45 terror attacks across the continent since 2016 — demonstrates the importance of close cooperation on internal security, so the geopolitical context highlights the extent to which the U.K. and the EU stand together on the world stage, increasingly in solidarity against Donald Trump’s policy reversals.

Speaking in London on Friday, Simon McDonald, the U.K. Foreign Office’s top official, cited support for the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord and opposition to relocating embassies in Israel to the city of Jerusalem as examples of areas of agreement between the U.K and “European partners.” The point was not lost that on all three, the EU and Britain are opposed to the Trump administration.

On Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will meet his French and German counterparts in Brussels with a view to salvaging what is left of the Iran deal, by discussing measures to protect European companies doing business with Iran from U.S. sanctions, Johnson said after holding a preliminary meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in London on Monday.

Despite broad agreement that, on foreign policy, the U.K. must accept its third country status post Brexit and become a closely consulted partner, but without a role in EU decision-making, the details are less than clear.

Barnier said there have been “misunderstandings” about Galileo but the dispute goes to the heart of the two sides differing approaches to Brexit negotiations.

Barnier said the U.K. “knows perfectly” that rules agreed unanimously in the past by EU members, including the U.K., bar British companies from “the development of security sensitive matters such as the manufacturing of PRS security” — referring to the encrypted part of Galileo at the center of the dispute. He added there is nothing to stop the U.K. from using the encrypted Galileo signal as a third country, so long as an agreement is in place.

This approach has not been welcomed in London. A paper outlining the U.K.’s preferred future security relations, which was published by the U.K. government last week, stated pointedly that “arrangements for any U.K. cooperation on Galileo are an important test case of the depth of operational cooperation and information sharing envisaged under the Security Partnership [sic].”

Monday’s letter to businesses working on the project suggested that test is not going well.

Fear of a trade-off

Running beneath all the exchanges on security since the U.K. referendum is the suspicion, felt at times on both sides, that the other will use security to its advantage in the wider Brexit talks.

“Solidarity is not to be negotiated,” Barnier said Monday. “Any trade-off between security and trade would lead to an historic failure and it would be a strategic mistake benefitting those who want to weaken us.”

Chief EU negotiator for Brexit, Michel Barnier, looks on prior to a General Affairs council on article 50 at the European Council in Brussels on May 14, 2018 | François Walschaerts/AFP via Getty Images

British negotiators insist nothing is further from their minds than using the U.K.’s undeniable heft in this area — 20 percent of European defense spending, according to McDonald, and internationally respected security and intelligence services MI5 and MI6 — as leverage to get a more generous or flexible trade deal from the EU.

The U.K. government may hope Parker’s trip to Berlin — the first ever public speech by a head of MI5 outside of the U.K. — will help their cause.

“I don’t do politics but it is of course political arrangements, laws and treaties that permit or constrain what we can do together as agencies protecting our countries and Europe,” he said, in a message apparently aimed at the EU’s Brexit negotiators and their legal advisers.

“So it’s as a security practitioner that I hope for a comprehensive and enduring agreement that tackles obstacles and allows the professionals to get on with the job together. We owe that to all our citizens across Europe.”

Cheeky NumberTwo

We definitely need more “clarity” from the EUs concerning their offer on security before we can enter negotiations about keeping their citizens safe from further terrorist attacks. Time is of the essence and nothing is agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed.
In the meantime I’m sure GCHQ and our special friends at the NSA will have slipped a backdoor into the Galileo hardware …just in case. Third party right? Third party rules then.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 10:32 AM CEST

Cheeky NumberTwo

British negotiators insist nothing is further from their minds than using the U.K.’s undeniable heft in this area.

Translation: nothing else is on their minds other than doing exactly that.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 10:34 AM CEST

Terence C

How to foster trust
1. Act as if your driving force is “unless you give us the trade terms we want we will not help in the fight against terrorists, organised crime etc”.
2. When resigning from a joint venture with 27 others you insist you retain all the benefits of a consortium member.
3. When the terms of the consortium agreement are pointed out to you – prove your trustworthiness by not delivering you consortium obligations.

cinc eur

@cheekynumbertwo

I’m so glad we have some faceless username on the internet to clear that up for us…

“Barnier said the U.K. “knows perfectly” that rules agreed unanimously in the past by EU members, including the U.K., bar British companies from “the development of security sensitive matters such as the manufacturing of PRS security”

“Solidarity is not to be negotiated,” Barnier said Monday. “Any trade-off between security and trade would lead to an historic failure and it would be a strategic mistake benefitting those who want to weaken us.”

Well, which is it?

Posted on 5/15/18 | 11:16 AM CEST

John Brown

““Solidarity is not to be negotiated,” Barnier said Monday. “Any trade-off between security and trade would lead to an historic failure and it would be a strategic mistake benefitting those who want to weaken us.””

Mr. Barnier is right.

The UK needs to be a third country and separate from the EU in order to benefit from intelligence gained by the US which they do not trust the EU to know.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 11:17 AM CEST

EU doublestandards

“Barnier said there had been “misunderstandings” about Galileo”

Nope, there were no misunderstandings – we got the message loud and clear – you want us to pay for continued access to Galileo, but you want us to give you our intelligence and military capabilities for free whenever you ask for it. No ‘cherrypicking’ EU – hadn’t we already established that?

Posted on 5/15/18 | 11:24 AM CEST

Craig Lamont

Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, both Barnier and Mogherini said Monday, must have “consequences,”
WHY?

Posted on 5/15/18 | 12:02 PM CEST

Saintixe 56

Security is not limited to Galileo. It also implies hard solid spending. Of the nature Frau Merkel Germany is not putting where her mouth is.
Poor military budget, benefiting from NATO aka sponging on Uncle Sam and other countries is hardly a way to prove one is of good faith. Especially while lecturing other countries which budgets admittedly are not as pristine as Berlin’s. This smacks of hypocrisy.
Germany, here and I speak as a Europhile, is not , underlining not credible. I bet Paris finances would be healthier if we had spent as less money as Berlin when it comes to military spending. In fact, I bet Herr Junker would be less interested in a EU army if De Gaulle and its presidential followers had been less dead set on some military autonomy.
I am in favour of a EU army but at the minute, as long as I do not see Berlin doing the right thing, while playing hypocritical games along lecturing France about budgets (oh the irony), I take security in Europe is not yet a sure thing.
For my German friends, I accept it may hurt but Merkel, Scholtz and Von der Leyen gall about not spending, relying on others pocket books while daring to reprimand on spending along at the very same time being untruthful partners is not contributive to trust.
Having completed this rant, I suggest for the EU to do what it has to do with Galileo and Britain to stick to its 5Eyes. I have no doubt security is going to be of a lesser quality for each side of Brexit.
But we all knew the outcome. Brussels has always been clear about a lose-lose situation. Brexit Britain cannot surely think it is the only entity to walk the walk and talk the talk.
There will, probably?, possibly?, be a comprehensive agreement but we know it will not cover every issue. There will be obstacles insurmountable. There will be less communication between the professionals.
It is not fun; but Brexit was about sovereignty and Brits cannot expect Continentals to favour less sovereignty on their side for Britain to be more independent. Independence cuts both ways.
The EU citizen I am accepts it, accepts the consequences. Brexit Britain has made its bed. I did not vote but I certainly get the results this vote was sowed.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 12:22 PM CEST

Alan

I guess that when the EU27 become ‘third country or countries’ there are consequences and export licences for security/defence technology may be one – unless there are agreements in place of course.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 12:34 PM CEST

Stan

@Craig Lamont
“Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, both Barnier and Mogherini said Monday, must have “consequences,” WHY?”

It always strikes me as an odd thing to say, perhaps it loses something in translation, ‘will’ is obvious but ‘must’ seems like stirring up grief for the sake of it, and that would be silly…

If there are necessary consequences, so be it. I didn’t really expect the necessary to be of the hissy fit variety once they had time compose themselves. Live and learn.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 12:51 PM CEST

François P

@Craig Lamont

“Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, both Barnier and Mogherini said Monday, must have “consequences,”

Couldn’t find such a sentence, or even something close, in the speech of Barnier.
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3785_en.htm

Posted on 5/15/18 | 1:08 PM CEST

Saintixe 56

@alan
@craiglamont

You call it a hissy fit. I call it a wake up call on acceptance there are differences too wide apart which cannot be bridged.
The Brexit vote gives Britain its ‘independence’. You surely must see it gives EU the similar ability. We had no voice, no vote in Britain vote; but we are able to read the conseqiences and so should you.
Britain is now a third country and the EU27 is also a third country/entity.

Why cannot we be friends?
Ermmm, possibly partners in some ventures but friends? Surely the irony must not escape you that at the time you run out of the stables, you cannot ask the stable owners to provide you with a roof for winter and hay in case your coveted newly independent green grass is not as satisfactory as you wished it to be.
I politely remind you Brussels has always unlike Britain been quite open about a lose-lose end game.
This is not a hissy fit. This is reality checking.
Divorce first. Splitting the assets and then and not before we shall see what can develop or not.
As a rule, human beings seldom invite for their family Christmas party the guy they are actually divorcing.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 1:13 PM CEST

Perry Winkle

How many hardware parts does the EU purchase from China for their jet fighters, security systems, etc. Etc. Etc…..?

Posted on 5/15/18 | 1:22 PM CEST

Klaus Wekx

Watched the circus Barnier being interviewed just the other day, the man thinks he is a stand up comedian. I think he was pizzed out of his head…

Posted on 5/15/18 | 1:40 PM CEST

Stan

@Saintixe 56

It was me that called it a hissy fit – mostly to trigger some poor unsuspecting but also there is and always has been a hint of it.

If we say there ‘must’ be consequences, that means we will make sure there are, we will manufacture those consequences, whether they would naturally exists or not. Very hissy fitesque. 🙂

As Francois points out though, on this occasion it appears that neither of them said that in the main speech. A job well done by Politico yet again.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 1:49 PM CEST

Stiv Ocssor

The EU are playing with fire. The UK controls vast amounts of technology used in European military hardware. The F-35 being a great example.

Alan

@saintixe56

Fully agree, its just that the EU side doesn’t always seem to grasp that it will be a third country in UK eyes

Posted on 5/15/18 | 3:02 PM CEST

Christopher Hiorns

‘Despite broad agreement that, on foreign policy, the U.K. must accept its third country status post Brexit and become a closely consulted partner, but without a role in EU decision-making, the details are less than clear.’

In other words the EU want to be able to utilise the UK armed forces but exclude the UK from the decision making process and command. If the EU goes ahead and move the Somalian anti piracy headquarters out of the UK then the UK should unilaterally pull out of all EU Common Security and Defence Policy missions. If the EU don’t feel that the missions should be run from or by the UK how can the UK feel secure risking its servicemen’s lives in the missions. They are even talking about moving EU NAVFOR to Spain which only recently offered to refuel Putin’s aircraft carriers on the way to Syria before buckling under international pressure.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 3:11 PM CEST

Donal O'Brien

Att Comment

As promised

I enclose for those who wish to know the Truth
The Oath sworn to Brussels by the COMMISSIONERS on there appointment

Which some of you may wish to keep for future reference

I Solemnly undertake to respect the Treaties and the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my Duties

To be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities in the General interest of the UNION

In the performance of my tasks nether to seek nor to take
Instructions from ANY GOVERNMENT or from any other institution body office or entity

To refrain from any action incompatible with my Duties or the performance of my Task

BOTH DURING AND AFTER

If a Commissioners speaks out of turn in relation to any matter referring to the EU after leaving the Gravy Train
His Pension and all rights attached can be stopped at once

The said Commissioners are also expected
The take the side of the EU in all Matters
As has been seen by our good friends the Lords

In reference to the MEP’S they don’t have to
Swear an Oath
Let’s just say the Remuneration and Massive Allowances take care of That

Regards
CHEERS FOR BREXIT
Allways
Donal O’Brien

Posted on 5/15/18 | 4:03 PM CEST

Donal O'Brien

Att Comment

Also requested

Commissioners basic monthly salary is fixed at 112.5% of the Top civil service grade
And is € 22.367.04

It is also said the average Pension paid out by the EU is € 40,000 annually

Of course not a murmur From Gunther in last weeks Projected Budget about reductions of any sort
Why its only European Tax Payer’s Money

As Allways the information is freely available should you wish to Check
Which i allways recommend

Couldn’t make this up

CHEERS FOR BREXIT
Allways
Donal O’Brien

Posted on 5/15/18 | 4:26 PM CEST

Ronald Grünebaum

It is not overly complicated.
The UK has decided to leave the EU and consequently will become a third country. This has a wide range of consequences stemming from EU law.
Some consequences can be mitigated by new bilateral agreements, some cannot.
The only interesting point here is that the UK government has not thought anything through and stumbles from one nasty surprise to the next. I would conclude that whatever the Brexit decision was based on it wasn’t profound knowledge of the EU and its laws.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 6:08 PM CEST

EU doublestandards

No Ronald – the only thing becoming clear is that when the UK wants to continue being a part of an EU service, the EU now wants to charge for it. But when the EU wants something from us, they expect to get it for free. There is a reason why the talks have stalled and its not just about the Irish border – it’s about the dawning realisation that this is not a negotiation in good faith – it is about the EU trying to cash in on Brexit whilst simultaneously expecting to receive cherries for free. F**k that!

Posted on 5/15/18 | 6:42 PM CEST

Juju Juju

“Craig Lamont
Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, both Barnier and Mogherini said Monday, must have “consequences,”
WHY?

Posted on 5/15/18 | 12:02 PM CEST”

How odd that Brexiteers make a decision as profound as Brexit and proclaim to be changing everything. Yet when told that there are consequences to change they say, “why?”
#facepalm!

Posted on 5/15/18 | 6:49 PM CEST

Juju Juju

Politico, can you please upgrade you comment system so that it’s in line with your peers. It really helps to be able to have a “reply” button at the bottom of every comment. That way it’s easy to follow conversation threads instead of what we have now, whereby every comment is in one massive bin bag.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 6:55 PM CEST

Stan

Juju Juju
You didn’t understand the question #facepalm!

Posted on 5/15/18 | 8:52 PM CEST

Priscilla du Bleu

@Cheeky NumberTwo
“In the meantime I’m sure GCHQ and our special friends at the NSA will have slipped a backdoor into the Galileo hardware …just in case.”

I doubt this would remain undiscovered. Tweaking hardware is one tricky issue and most likely to be found out, see the intel-(NSA)backdoor some CISCO connectivity had built in.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 9:04 PM CEST

Christopher Hiorns

The underlying message is clear. The U.K. should not be party to any ‘EU’ missions but only Nato missions we need to pull out of any EU security or defence missions now.

Posted on 5/15/18 | 10:04 PM CEST

Perry Winkle

Donal O’Brien

“I enclose for those who wish to know the Truth
The Oath sworn to Brussels by the COMMISSIONERS on there appointment”

That’s most interesting. It is in fact an oath of betrayal to appointees’ own country.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 12:02 AM CEST

Anthony Chambers

Sometimes when friends have a fight, they need to realise if they offended the other party. So i will speak for myself and say we love you Europe.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 12:31 AM CEST

Ghost of JB

@Terrence C

How to foster trust?

Ignore the 40 years of contributions, refuse a share of the assets created with those contributions, try to undermine the democracy of an erstwhile partner, start applying rules in an entirely arbitrary and inconsistent manner and claim to be an ally…

Works both ways.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 12:58 AM CEST

Peter Monta

Do we still have on the authority of security and intelligence experts Alan and Dr O that British Intellgence services only provide crumbs to their allies? Can’t have it both ways you know. If they weren’t before Brexit why should anyone trust them after Brexit? Not really worth much as a negotiating tactic if they are right? I would think it would be an issue of some importance seeing as an EU nation, Ireland, will get to decide who gets into Ireland and hence into the rest of the UK through the imaginary border. And vice verse of course.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 1:03 AM CEST

Stiv Ocssor

Priscilla du Bleu

I doubt this would remain undiscovered. Tweaking hardware is one tricky issue and most likely to be found out, see the intel-(NSA)backdoor some CISCO connectivity had built in.

You underestimate the capabilities of western ELINT/SIGNIT. Tweaking hardware is not hard. Ask the Iranians – Stuxnet is a great example that targeted the PLC’s on Iranian centrifuges and destroyed them.
Only the advanced ELINT/SIGNIT capabilities available to NSA/GCHQ and Five Eyes discover backdoors and zero day exploits – both of which are highly classified and worth millions.
Galileo will already have been compromised.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 1:15 AM CEST

Perry Winkle

Of course we Love Europe. We share in many ways a common history, fought for the freedom of Europeans. Brexit doesn’t stand for anti-europe. It stands for self governance and upholding our sovereignty.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 1:40 AM CEST

Priscilla du Bleu

@Stiv Occssor
“Only the advanced ELINT/SIGNIT capabilities available to NSA/GCHQ and Five Eyes discover backdoors and zero day exploits – both of which are highly classified and worth millions.!

Your 5 eyes mentioning (under your various usernames) becomes boring ….. and the EU DOES have access to the ‘5 eyes’ … which are in fact 14 eyes in the meantime.

wiki it! I cannot even be bothered to link it for you.

So, your argument in that respect is null and void.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 8:44 AM CEST

Priscilla du Bleu

@Perry Winkle
“Of course we Love Europe. We share in many ways a common history, fought for the freedom of Europeans. Brexit doesn’t stand for anti-europe. It stands for self governance and upholding our sovereignty.”

Sovreignty as in becoming a vassal state and begging on her knees for ‘special relationship’, replicating EU laws, leaving the irish border issue to the EU for solving it etc etc etc ….

Posted on 5/16/18 | 8:46 AM CEST

Klaus Wekx

ANGELA Merkel has put Germany’s international credibility on the line after it was revealed Berlin will fail to meet the Nato defence spending target.
And in a bid to save face her defence minister Ursula von der Leyen hinted Germany could ask for the two percent target to be lowered at the next Nato summit.
Mrs Merkel had pledged to meet the Nato spending goal of two percent of GDP on defence a Bundeswehr, German armed forces, conference, after a dressing down from US President Donald Trump.
However Mrs von der Leyen admitted Germany would not make the 2024 deadline it agreed to at the Nato summit in Wales in 2014.

Are Germans are now the all new cheese eating surrender monkeys?

Posted on 5/16/18 | 10:31 AM CEST

blue bell

What are we to conclude from this when Germany’s trade surplus which stood at €253bn in 2016 (and increased in 2017) with the country’s current account surplus — a broader measure that in effect tracks the stock of excess savings that countries export elsewhere — is expected to have reached more or less the same level, at above 8 per cent of gross domestic product for the year.

In early 2017 the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund expressed alarm at a gap that risks stoking global economic imbalances and the risk of debt-fuelled financial crises.

“There is simply not enough demand for capital elsewhere in the world to absorb that excess saving without declining returns,” Mario Draghi, ECB president, said last year, alluding to Germany’s string of hefty current account surpluses. He maintained Berlin was therefore in part responsible for the low interest rates many Germans loathe.

Is this a clear case of short arms and deep pockets?

Posted on 5/16/18 | 11:41 AM CEST

Stiv Ocssor

Your 5 eyes mentioning (under your various usernames) becomes boring ….. and the EU DOES have access to the ‘5 eyes’ … which are in fact 14 eyes in the meantime.

wiki it! I cannot even be bothered to link it for you.

So, your argument in that respect is null and void.

Of course you wont link to it. Because your full of shít. Five Eyes is exclusive to the Anglosphere.

Stiv Ocssor

You may even learn that your beloved Germany sold Russian technology to NATO after the reunification. This is one of the main reasons the US/UK never trusted Germany with sensitive technology.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 6:53 PM CEST

Alex Tate

@Stiv Ocssor

Priscilla Blau (aka La Trolette) doesn’t have a clue about Five Eyes – or indeed about anything much else judging by the constant stream of racist, xenophobic, unintelligent and usually thoroughly unpleasant drivel she (he?) spews up on here.

No point taking the last notice of it.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 7:23 PM CEST

Alex Tate

* least notice…

Posted on 5/16/18 | 7:27 PM CEST

Stan

@Priscilla du Bleu
“Your 5 eyes mentioning (under your various usernames) becomes boring ….. and the EU DOES have access to the ‘5 eyes’ … which are in fact 14 eyes in the meantime. wiki it! ”

😀 “Wiki it…”

“Despite the fact that the alliance is known throughout the world and its existence is subject of endless debates, the real knowledge of how the Five Eyes works is still clouded by the security measures that involves almost everything related to the Five Eyes.

The secretiveness of the alliance is so severe that the treaty that created it was not in the knowledge of Gough Whitlam, then Prime Minister of Australia, as late as 1973 and it did not come to the public attention until 2005. Only in June 2010, the full text of the UKUSA Agreement was released by the British and American governments and for the first time officially recognised.”

They seem to have not realised a Wikipedia article written by some bloke with 15 cats (I may have made that up) has spilled the beans.

“In addition, the Five Eyes works with various ‘Third Party’ countries, the co-operation with Denmark, France, Norway and the Netherlands receives the name of ‘Nine Eyes’, and there is the ‘Fourteen Eyes’ which consists of the previously mentioned Nine Eyes plus Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden. However, the official name of the Fourteen Eyes is SIGINT Seniors Europe (SSEUR), and its primary objective is to coordinate the exchange of military signals amongst its members.”

Wiki is cool and all for quickly getting up to speed on stuff we know FA about, and we all know you’ve presented your expertise many times after a quick shifty through a wiki, but its main gift is the list of reference sources. But it’s a public wiki not official documentation 🙂 Citing it is generally met with a smile and a pat on the head, and many higher education institutions outright disallow it for reference source.

There is a perfectly good website run by the UK Defence Journal that will tell you as much of what is publicly known about it as is available.

As for access for the nations of the EU, I will be amazed if the access (whatever that is) pre brexit isn’t maintained post brexit.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 8:34 PM CEST

Stiv Ocssor

Poor military budget, benefiting from NATO aka sponging on Uncle Sam and other countries is hardly a way to prove one is of good faith.

It is worse than that. Germany are known technology thieves within the military. Under a joint US/UK/GER program it was agreed that the US would design the a long range missile designated the AMRAAM and the UK and Germany would build the short to medium range missile designated the ASRAAM.
After much controversy between the UK and Germany about design requirements Germany left the ASRAAM program and stole the seeker technology used in the ASRAAM and placed it into the German IRIS-T.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 9:09 PM CEST

Stiv Ocssor

@Stan
A lot of information on the projects used by the Five Eyes were leaked by Edward Snowden and are well documented. Google Snowden slides.

Stan

@Stiv Ocssor

Yeah I probably picked the worst possible example of the shortfalls of Wikipedia given the Snowden files, oh well 🙂

Posted on 5/17/18 | 10:22 AM CEST

Craig Lamont

@Francois P
It’s in the pigging article!!! Did you skip reading it and just go straight into trolling?
@Little Blue Phil/ Priscilla du WalterMitty Your ignorance of 5 eyes was at a new level of pathetic, even for you! That’s the trouble with pretending/wishing you were something you aren’t, eventually it comes back and bites you. Have a pleasant weekend young man.